You keep insisting that you are showing tons and tons of proof. Sure you are writing a bunch of stuff, but you have yet to show anything resembling actual proof. The only thing you have managed to prove so far is something we all already knew: The wide 9 sacrifices DL play against the run in order to attempt to get more pressure vs. the pass.

You have not offered anything up on a silver platter. All of your arguments are easily dismissed by simple logic. The plate actually is red. Your color chart is mislabeled, your artist is color blind.

Just because the team failed to adjust, does not mean the wide 9 told them "No, you can't adjust me!", which is precisely the implication you are giving. No defense prevents adjustment. How is it that 3-4 teams often use a 4 man line when in the nickel? "But they can't! The team uses a 3 man line!" This is exactly what you are saying.

Before the bye, just as an example, the Eagles defense was excellent in getting off the field after third down, allowing opponents to convert just 29.1 percent of the time (23-79). In the six games since, opponents have converted 51.4 percent of third-down tries (37-72), which is beyond awful.

I'm not going to try and pass this off as "proof" of anything, but it does reinforce my position in disagreeing with your premise. This is just stuff I happened to stumble on when goofing around on the internet.

Which brings me to one final point. It's blatantly obvious that you completely missed what I was saying when I said I wasn't from Philly. I am fairly reasonably up on Eagles news, though. How did that happen? I don't see all of it, but I do see a good portion of it. We have this wonderful thing called the internet. We have articles, videos, and forums we can all access. We have national news sites and more local sites. I can listen to Merril Reese call Eagles games broadcast on the radio or local Eagles related sports talk shows. Does my bias run to Eagles content? of course, but that doesn't stop me from looking in on what other teams have going on from time to time. If the wide 9 was as villified somewhere else as it was in Philly, I can be reasonably sure I'd have seen something somewhere about it.

^How is this for reasonable? One other team in the NFL runs the scheme. Let that part first sink in. Ok secondly, they currently have the 18th ranked pass defense and 19th rank run defense despite having one of the best DT tandems in the NFL. They had the 23rd ranked run defense allowed 5.0 YPC last year and let up 24.2 PPG, bad enough to put them in the bottom quarter. 2010 they had the 24th ranked run defense and let up 4.5 YPC.

The numbers don't lie. They have arguably better pieces in place to run the scheme and have gotten completely gashed every single year they have run it. Why don't we hear as much in the news from Detroit? Probably because their media isn't as hard on the team as it is here. I don't think you'll find too many Lions fans on FF that praise this scheme. Media opinion isn't the end all be all, there are posters on here who's opinion and knowledge I respect moreso than any member of a local media.

I hardly see how the stat you cited adds anything to your argument either. Please elaborate.

There were reports that after Reid hired WAshburn no DC wanted to join the Eagles and run a defense that catered to the Wide-9. Why? Because as Phire pointed out there is little flexibility with the scheme. Everyone else on the defense has to make up for the d-lines lack of effort against the run. LBs and Safetys have to be far more down hill than they would be in a traditional 4-3 and this leads to a very susceptible defense against play action.

I think it is safe to say this defense took an even further turn for the worst when we lost Castillo. He at least brought some fire and preached basic fundamentals like tackling. DRC even had comments about it not being his fault. Now the effort you see is just downright pathetic from a team that has mailed it in, that will happen when you have poor leadership and a scheme that no one buys-in on.

Also, your comparison of 3-4 teams using a 4 man line and a nickel defense is downright laughable. In a 3-4 defense they adjust accordingly to the down and distance and the game situation. To go along with this, the d-lineman's assignments change, the DEs will split out further and play more aggressively rather than eating blocks. With Washburn's wide-9 scheme you would never see any variation in the d-line assignments, they are still doing the same thing each and every time. Again, this makes everyone else on the defense have to be accountable for their short comings._________________

^How is this for reasonable? One other team in the NFL runs the scheme. Let that part first sink in. Ok secondly, they currently have the 18th ranked pass defense and 19th rank run defense despite having one of the best DT tandems in the NFL. They had the 23rd ranked run defense allowed 5.0 YPC last year and let up 24.2 PPG, bad enough to put them in the bottom quarter. 2010 they had the 24th ranked run defense and let up 4.5 YPC.

The numbers don't lie. They have arguably better pieces in place to run the scheme and have gotten completely gashed every single year they have run it. Why don't we hear as much in the news from Detroit? Probably because their media isn't as hard on the team as it is here. I don't think you'll find too many Lions fans on FF that praise this scheme. Media opinion isn't the end all be all, there are posters on here who's opinion and knowledge I respect moreso than any member of a local media.

This is a fair argument, but hardly definitive. Tenessee had some extremely good defenses during the time they were using the wide 9, including several that were top 10 vs. the run.

I hardly see how the stat you cited adds anything to your argument either. Please elaborate.

Seriously? Just...wow. It clearly (along with little things like the ridiculous inflation of opponents passer rating since the bye) demonstrates the deterioration of the defense after Juan left. The stats before he left were at least respectable and sometimes even good. This would support the theory that it is not necessarily the system's fault, but a coaching/team management issue.

There were reports that after Reid hired WAshburn no DC wanted to join the Eagles and run a defense that catered to the Wide-9. Why? Because as Phire pointed out there is little flexibility with the scheme. Everyone else on the defense has to make up for the d-lines lack of effort against the run. LBs and Safetys have to be far more down hill than they would be in a traditional 4-3 and this leads to a very susceptible defense against play action.

I would disagree somewhat here. I don't think it's necessarily specifically that the Eagles wanted to use the wide 9 (although it may have been for some coaches due to it not being their preferred system), but more of simply having a portion of their defense dictated to them in the first place. This could possibly also include them not having a say in the hiring of their assistants and/or them knowing Washburn and not liking him personally.

I think it is safe to say this defense took an even further turn for the worst when we lost Castillo. He at least brought some fire and preached basic fundamentals like tackling. DRC even had comments about it not being his fault. Now the effort you see is just downright pathetic from a team that has mailed it in, that will happen when you have poor leadership and a scheme that no one buys-in on.

Most of this I would agree with. However, it's a coaches job to "sell" the players on their scheme. It's entirely possible that the players lack confidence in Bowles ability to run the scheme or that it's not Bowles preferred scheme has affected their confidence. Whichever way you slice it, it's conjecture on both our parts.

Also, your comparison of 3-4 teams using a 4 man line and a nickel defense is downright laughable. In a 3-4 defense they adjust accordingly to the down and distance and the game situation. To go along with this, the d-lineman's assignments change, the DEs will split out further and play more aggressively rather than eating blocks. With Washburn's wide-9 scheme you would never see any variation in the d-line assignments, they are still doing the same thing each and every time. Again, this makes everyone else on the defense have to be accountable for their short comings.

No, it's extremely apt. I have given several examples of the Eagles using different fronts already in this thread. It's patently absurd to say that whatever base front a team uses can prevent them from making any adjustments. Just because they failed to adjust does not, in any way, prove that the defense was incapable of adjusting. At least certainly not because of the front they use. Now if you wanted to say that the defense was inflexible due to Washburn's insistence on keeping an iron grip on the line, then we might find some common ground.

The essence here is this: You don't have to like the system. I, myself, could take it or leave it. But it has been at least reasonably successful in other places. Particularly given the other disfunction that has obviously been going on, you have an awfully hard row to hoe if you want to try and prove that lining the ends up a yard wider was the primary or even most significant cause for this team's defensive struggles.

The essence here is this: You don't have to like the system. I, myself, could take it or leave it. But it has been at least reasonably successful in other places. Particularly given the other disfunction that has obviously been going on, you have an awfully hard row to hoe if you want to try and prove that lining the ends up a yard wider was the primary or even most significant cause for this team's defensive struggles.

Our defense sucks on a whole new level next to the Jets suck level. We can't tackle, cause turnovers, wrap up or read a QB. Having our ends line up in the wide-9 Scheme is supposed to help our DE's get after the QB. But they can't. We suck and the wide-9 isn't the biggest problem why. Its a mixture of talent we didn't draft and play-calling._________________Andy constantly was drafting slower, undersized guys with hearts of gold who loved helping old ladies across the street. Unfortunately for them he couldn't teach them how not to get run over.

The only thing you have managed to prove so far is something we all already knew: The wide 9 sacrifices DL play against the run in order to attempt to get more pressure vs. the pass.

I want you to answer the following with only either a yes, or no.

1. the wide-9 intrinsically has flaws, such as sacrificing the run to get more pressure on the QB.
2. our form of the wide-9 does not adapt to make up for its shortcomings.
3. the wide-9, not being able to change itself, subsequently prevents any substantial changes from being made.

I do not see any cause as to why all of these are not a resounding "YES".

Quote:

Just because the team failed to adjust, does not mean the wide 9 told them "No, you can't adjust me!", which is precisely the implication you are giving. No defense prevents adjustment. How is it that 3-4 teams often use a 4 man line when in the nickel? "But they can't! The team uses a 3 man line!" This is exactly what you are saying.

Do we know if the team failed to adjust?
How do YOU know the wide-9 didn't prevent adjustment?

I understand fully that base formations are just that, a base. But you honestly would have to be a blind man to not see how the wide-9 has limited our adjustment.

Tell me this.
If coaching was a problem, why was it not a problem for 3/4 of the game?

Teams adjust late in games.

The Eagles were losing in the 4th quarter, mainly by failing to adjust.

You say it's a coaching problem.
I say it's a wide-9 problem.

The wide-9, on a bare minimum amount of snaps, has utilized slightly different looks. An extra guy here, a LB there.

Castillo, for all his inexperience as a playcaller, is not mentally retarded. He has seen the game enough to realize adjustments have to be made.

The problem wasn't that the horribly wrong adjustments were being made, it was that little at all, if any, adjustments were being made.

I have enough respect for Castillo to assume he did as much as he could to adjust to offenses in the 4th quarter.

But he was limited by the wide-9, and that is my point. The wide-9 comes with a slate full of problems. All that we've seen, all that we can see from watching games.

We didn't see any adjustments. We failed to adjust. Our form of the wide-9 NEVER CHANGED. Because it's not supposed to. It's designed to be the wide-9 from the first snap to the last.

The wide-9 comes with problems.
Problems it itself cannot solve.

Right there^^^ is the inflexibility and inability to adjust. It cannot adjust itself, therefore, it limits adjustment.

The only thing you have managed to prove so far is something we all already knew: The wide 9 sacrifices DL play against the run in order to attempt to get more pressure vs. the pass.

I want you to answer the following with only either a yes, or no.

1. the wide-9 intrinsically has flaws, such as sacrificing the run to get more pressure on the QB.
2. our form of the wide-9 does not adapt to make up for its shortcomings.
3. the wide-9, not being able to change itself, subsequently prevents any substantial changes from being made.

I do not see any cause as to why all of these are not a resounding "YES".

The first question is obviously a "yes" answer. It has the same flaws as any other aggressive formation.

Questions 2 and 3 are loaded questions and thus irrelevant. Answering them in anay serious manner would force me to concede a supposition that I do not agree with in the first place. Essentially you want me to state that a defense, any defense, is capable of intrinsically changing itsself. That is possibly one of the most absurd things I have seen on a forum that has included its share of...ahem... "colorful" characters.

Quote:

Just because the team failed to adjust, does not mean the wide 9 told them "No, you can't adjust me!", which is precisely the implication you are giving. No defense prevents adjustment. How is it that 3-4 teams often use a 4 man line when in the nickel? "But they can't! The team uses a 3 man line!" This is exactly what you are saying.

Do we know if the team failed to adjust?
How do YOU know the wide-9 didn't prevent adjustment?

Um, logic? Common sense? Did you seriously just ask this question?

I understand fully that base formations are just that, a base. But you honestly would have to be a blind man to not see how the wide-9 has limited our adjustment.

What makes you so sure it was the wide nine in and of itsself that prevented adjustment? How on earth could it? It is not a living, speaking thing. It's a formation. You can't be serious with this utter nonsense.

Tell me this.
If coaching was a problem, why was it not a problem for 3/4 of the game?

The simple counter would be: How come it wasn't a problem for 3/4 of the game if it's so bad?

Teams adjust late in games.

OMG!

The Eagles were losing in the 4th quarter, mainly by failing to adjust.

Arguable, but reasonable to assume given the evidence.

You say it's a coaching problem.
I say it's a wide-9 problem.

And what makes you specifically blame the wide 9? You do realize that even if I were to concede it being a formation problem (I'm not), it would still have it's root in a coaching issue, right? The unwillingness to adjust in respnse to your opponent.

The wide-9, on a bare minimum amount of snaps, has utilized slightly different looks. An extra guy here, a LB there.

Castillo, for all his inexperience as a playcaller, is not mentally retarded. He has seen the game enough to realize adjustments have to be made.

The problem wasn't that the horribly wrong adjustments were being made, it was that little at all, if any, adjustments were being made.

I have enough respect for Castillo to assume he did as much as he could to adjust to offenses in the 4th quarter.

But he was limited by the wide-9, and that is my point. The wide-9 comes with a slate full of problems. All that we've seen, all that we can see from watching games.

You still have as of yet been able to explain how the wide nine in and of itsself was limiting. Perhaps a coach's unwillingness to make certain adjustments could explain it, but that would, again, be a coaching issue.

We didn't see any adjustments. We failed to adjust. Our form of the wide-9 NEVER CHANGED. Because it's not supposed to. It's designed to be the wide-9 from the first snap to the last.

The first only shows that the team failed to adjust, which is not the same thing as being unable to adjust, by any measure. The second is pure conjecture.

The wide-9 comes with problems.
Problems it itself cannot solve.

All formations come with issues. There is nothing grounbreaking here. They all require certain things at each level of the defense in order to work correctly as a whole.

Right there^^^ is the inflexibility and inability to adjust. It cannot adjust itself, therefore, it limits adjustment.

This is logic.

No. This is a logic fail. You expect an object with no life or though of its own to simply adjust itsself. It literally makes no sense whatsoever. The formation doesn't adjust itsself. Coaches adjust it. Our coaches either failed to adjust or failed to adjust enough in some situations. As to why they didn't adjust well, we can only speculate, but based on what we know at this time, it would seem to point very strongly at Washburn's little fiefdom with the line.

The wide-9 is designated its name and distinguished so because it is by its very nature a distinct and different system.

The wide-9 is the wide-9 because of the rules and laws that govern it. The same rules and laws in place that allows it to achieve the one goal it has in mind: Get to the quarterback.

I am speaking specifically of the wide-9 employed in Philadelphia. Other teams use a similar alignment from time to time, but it's not what defines their defense.

There is the big difference. There is a difference between teams using the wide-9 as part of an arsenal of different formations and looks, and a team that strictly utilizes the wide-9 at all times.

That is to say, other teams run with a full arsenal. They have swords, guns, horses, bows, cannons, and other weapons at their disposal to suit their needs through the course of battle.

The wide-9 employed in Philadelphia is strictly a dagger. It is meant to have one goal: close hand-to-hand combat, quick, decisive blow.

When the wide-9 is simply a weapon, you can use it on a situation-by-situation basis. The enemy is far? Use a bow. The enemy is near? Use a lance.

The Philadelphia wide-9 defense has a dagger in hand whether the enemy is right on top of it, or two miles away. And we hardly ever switched weapons.

Quote:

Questions 2 and 3 are loaded questions and thus irrelevant. Answering them in anay serious manner would force me to concede a supposition that I do not agree with in the first place. Essentially you want me to state that a defense, any defense, is capable of intrinsically changing itsself. That is possibly one of the most absurd things I have seen on a forum that has included its share of...ahem... "colorful" characters.

They're loaded to you because of the simple fact is that the wide-9 has done through two seasons what exactly I am alluding to.

Think about it this way. A traditional 4-3 defense has what goals? To stop the offense. You can use 1-gap, 2-gap, and other techniques, but they don't necessarily limit what you're trying to do.

The wide-9 technique changes the landscape of the front 4 and doesn't change their responsibilities.

If you don't want to answer any other of my "loaded" questions, then at the very least answer the following.

In a regular 4-3 defense, where the DE shares responsibilities rushing the passer and stopping the run, they are game-planned to accommodate for their opponent.

For an example... if you're facing a Michael Vick team, you have your ends stay home and keep outside contain.

If the opposing quarterback is a statue in the pocket you're going to try and collapse the pocket and not maintain outside contain as much.

Tell me now: is that not a flexibility attributed to a defense? You play the same position, in the same defense, but your responsibilities change.

This can happen during games too, meaning in-game adjustments.
Team A is known to run the ball A LOT.

So you prepare to stop the run. You don't give them the inside. You refrain from being too aggressive as to not opening up running lanes.

Team A, through the first half is passing a lot.
What can you do?

Get more aggressive, tell your ends to rush the passer. Bring more blitzes. Utilize more stunts. Sacrifice some running lanes with the assumption that they will continue to pass.

This is an in-game adjustment.

Now tell me, when employing the wide-9, does the responsibilities ever change? When are the ends ever NOT aggressive, even when teams are exploiting it?

Jason Babin comes out into the game with the wide-9 mentality. Give up the run, rush the passer.

What if a team attacks the fact that he's not watching for the run at all?
Does Jim Washburn, or our coordinators, ever tell Jason Babin to play more run defense?

Has this ever been the case?

Is Jason Babin playing Cam Newton any differently from Eli Manning?

If your answer is "NO", then you've identified the inflexibility inherent within the wide-9.

How you cannot see this is completely baffling me.

Quote:

No. This is a logic fail. You expect an object with no life or though of its own to simply adjust itsself. It literally makes no sense whatsoever. The formation doesn't adjust itsself. Coaches adjust it. Our coaches either failed to adjust or failed to adjust enough in some situations. As to why they didn't adjust well, we can only speculate, but based on what we know at this time, it would seem to point very strongly at Washburn's little fiefdom with the line.

I've explained it. If you cannot grasp it, it is not my problem._________________

The wide-9 is designated its name and distinguished so because it is by its very nature a distinct and different system.

The wide-9 is the wide-9 because of the rules and laws that govern it. The same rules and laws in place that allows it to achieve the one goal it has in mind: Get to the quarterback.

I am speaking specifically of the wide-9 employed in Philadelphia. Other teams use a similar alignment from time to time, but it's not what defines their defense.

There is the big difference. There is a difference between teams using the wide-9 as part of an arsenal of different formations and looks, and a team that strictly utilizes the wide-9 at all times.

That is to say, other teams run with a full arsenal. They have swords, guns, horses, bows, cannons, and other weapons at their disposal to suit their needs through the course of battle.

The wide-9 employed in Philadelphia is strictly a dagger. It is meant to have one goal: close hand-to-hand combat, quick, decisive blow.

When the wide-9 is simply a weapon, you can use it on a situation-by-situation basis. The enemy is far? Use a bow. The enemy is near? Use a lance.

The Philadelphia wide-9 defense has a dagger in hand whether the enemy is right on top of it, or two miles away. And we hardly ever switched weapons.

Quote:

Questions 2 and 3 are loaded questions and thus irrelevant. Answering them in anay serious manner would force me to concede a supposition that I do not agree with in the first place. Essentially you want me to state that a defense, any defense, is capable of intrinsically changing itsself. That is possibly one of the most absurd things I have seen on a forum that has included its share of...ahem... "colorful" characters.

They're loaded to you because of the simple fact is that the wide-9 has done through two seasons what exactly I am alluding to.

Think about it this way. A traditional 4-3 defense has what goals? To stop the offense. You can use 1-gap, 2-gap, and other techniques, but they don't necessarily limit what you're trying to do.

The wide-9 technique changes the landscape of the front 4 and doesn't change their responsibilities.

If you don't want to answer any other of my "loaded" questions, then at the very least answer the following.

In a regular 4-3 defense, where the DE shares responsibilities rushing the passer and stopping the run, they are game-planned to accommodate for their opponent.

For an example... if you're facing a Michael Vick team, you have your ends stay home and keep outside contain.

If the opposing quarterback is a statue in the pocket you're going to try and collapse the pocket and not maintain outside contain as much.

Tell me now: is that not a flexibility attributed to a defense? You play the same position, in the same defense, but your responsibilities change.

This can happen during games too, meaning in-game adjustments.
Team A is known to run the ball A LOT.

So you prepare to stop the run. You don't give them the inside. You refrain from being too aggressive as to not opening up running lanes.

Team A, through the first half is passing a lot.
What can you do?

Get more aggressive, tell your ends to rush the passer. Bring more blitzes. Utilize more stunts. Sacrifice some running lanes with the assumption that they will continue to pass.

This is an in-game adjustment.

Now tell me, when employing the wide-9, does the responsibilities ever change? When are the ends ever NOT aggressive, even when teams are exploiting it?

Jason Babin comes out into the game with the wide-9 mentality. Give up the run, rush the passer.

What if a team attacks the fact that he's not watching for the run at all?
Does Jim Washburn, or our coordinators, ever tell Jason Babin to play more run defense?

Has this ever been the case?

Is Jason Babin playing Cam Newton any differently from Eli Manning?

If your answer is "NO", then you've identified the inflexibility inherent within the wide-9.

How you cannot see this is completely baffling me.

Quote:

No. This is a logic fail. You expect an object with no life or though of its own to simply adjust itsself. It literally makes no sense whatsoever. The formation doesn't adjust itsself. Coaches adjust it. Our coaches either failed to adjust or failed to adjust enough in some situations. As to why they didn't adjust well, we can only speculate, but based on what we know at this time, it would seem to point very strongly at Washburn's little fiefdom with the line.

I've explained it. If you cannot grasp it, it is not my problem.

A couple of things here:

You use "4-3 defense" and "Wide 9" interchangeably. This is wrong off the get go. The wide 9 is a formation of the front 4, not the entire defense. It is a sub category of said 4-3. Certainly different formations require the rest of the defense to play in different ways. If the Eagles used a 2 gap line they might use their LBs in a different way than if they used a 1 gap line.

Some versions of a 4-3 require players to do different things. You might require you tackles and right end to 1 gap and your left end to 2 gap for example (the Eagles actually used this on occasion under JJ). Technically, there is no such thing anymore as a "traditional 4-3". Ultimately, this is the part that you refuse to grasp.

The wide 9 is called the wide 9 because the ends line up in the nine technique. It is often given special notice because it is somewhat different to use it as a base than what most teams do, not because it is a defense unto itsself.

The majority of defenses are designed around a particular philosophy (and yes, this is different than game planning). It could be to penetrate the backfield to hurry the Q in order to bait him with your coverages (Dungy Tampa 2) or it could be to confuse the QB with an assortment of potential blitzers (Lebeau's 3-4 Fire Zone), or any number of other things based on what the designer feels will have the most success.

If your idea is to get the most possible pressure with your front 4 while keeping th maximum backside of the defense, the wide 9 is not a bad place to start.

Your problem is that you are confusing a coach's unwillingness to be more flexible with a formation's usage in the base defense.

I am adamantly convinced that you are not reading or grasping the main point of my posts.

Maybe that's my fault for not being clear.

This was my thesis statement at the onset of my initial post:

Quote:

I feel, despite the poor play from our secondary and all-around defensive performance, much of the problem is with coaching, scheme, and the devil that is the wide-9.

I even go as far as to say the wide-9 can work.

I never said the wide-9 was impossible to employ. I never said coaching was not a problem. I never said Washburn's freelancing and personal fiefdom were not a problem.

Every point that relates to the wide-9 and subsequent domino effects could encompass all factors such as scheme, coaching, player talent, etc. I'm convinced they are not mutually exclusive as a whole.

These were acquired from two seasons of observation. These problems may even be unique to the Philadelphia Eagles defense from 2011-2012, with this set of coaches, and with this set of players.

Whatever the case, the wide-9 had problems. Irrefutable problems.
Those problems magnified with coaching conflicts.
They magnified with bad player talent and skill.
They magnified as we kept losing and players lost effort.
They magnified when Castillo was fired.

And I still DO BELIEVE the wide-9 was a culprit for the on-field issues. Stopping the run was always a problem. Our all-pro players stopped producing.

The only part I guess I am failing to grasp is how you could possibly think what you just wrote and in the next breath say the wide nine is to blame. I honestly can't imagine what would make you insist that it was the formation itsself. Do you think that it was used too much? Did the team continue to use it even after opponents began to key on its weaknesses? How could either of those possibly be anything but coaching issues?

The formation cannot force the coaches to adjust or not. It's the coaches descision. It cannot force the coaches to practice a certain way. It's the coaches descision. If you believe that [some] coaches were devoted to it to the point of blindness, that's still a coaching issue. There is no possible way that anything pertaining to the way the Eagles used the wide 9 comes back to anything but the coaches decisions. Ergo, making it a coaching issue no matter how you slice it.

The only part I guess I am failing to grasp is how you could possibly think what you just wrote and in the next breath say the wide nine is to blame. I honestly can't imagine what would make you insist that it was the formation itsself. Do you think that it was used too much? Did the team continue to use it even after opponents began to key on its weaknesses? How could either of those possibly be anything but coaching issues?

The formation cannot force the coaches to adjust or not. It's the coaches descision. It cannot force the coaches to practice a certain way. It's the coaches descision. If you believe that [some] coaches were devoted to it to the point of blindness, that's still a coaching issue. There is no possible way that anything pertaining to the way the Eagles used the wide 9 comes back to anything but the coaches decisions. Ergo, making it a coaching issue no matter how you slice it.

So I guess the Lions don't have the right coaching then either.

Before the Wide-9 was even implemented we didn't have close to the personnel ready on defense, our LBs were soft and didn't play downhill, we were weak up front at the DT position and we had/still have safeties that can't tackle. Everyone in the off-season proclaimed if we upgraded our LBs we would be fine. I didn't buy it. Surely, enough this year we are getting run on just as bad if not worse and we have now ridden ourselves of this scheme.

Despite drafting "his guy" Fletcher Cox, Jim Washburn couldn't find a force in the middle to consistently collapse the pocket something that is REQUIRED when you are running the wide-9 habitually.

If you don't have a mobile QB, you don't run a read-option system, why would you run this defense without the most vital position? Leave it to the egomatic Jim Washsburn to try and make it work, regardless. But not only try to make it work but refuse to have your players do anything other than rush the passer despite clear flaws. So yes, coaching does deserve a fair share of the blame.

But again, this scheme is run by 1, O-N-E other team in the NFL. Is there something the Lions know that the rest of the NFL doesn't? Tennessee ran it successfully, but you could have run any defense around Albert Haynesworth and it would've been successful for those couple years, the guy was the definition of unstoppable. Funny, that when he left, shortly after Washburn was out the door as well. That should tell you something. So can the Wide-9 be successful? Yes, if you have elite talent at its most crucial positions (DT, MLB). But even as we see with the Lions there are still so many holes to be exploited (they lack talent at CB and DE).

Even if you add an extra d-line man and run the scheme with a 5 man d-line you are still going to get hurt one way or another. Like I've pointed out in this thread, it doesn't change the fact that everyone on the back end has to make up for the stubborn mentality of the defensive line. When your LBs and Safeties have to be your primary run defenders you're bound to get burned in other ways._________________

Just go to the stadium and watch the wide-9 in person from one of the endzones.

You will just see the blatantly large holes in the defense.

NFL teams are spreading out in order to spread out the defense, create large spaces, and take advantages of mismatches.

The Wide-9 does that for offenses and exposes the defense. I was at the game in Washington and watched it from one of the endzones. The Redskins had runs up the middle and to the edge all day. Why?

Because the wide-9 gave the Redskins the middle and since our defensive ends in the wide-9 just crash and crash hard, they had the edge. And that just put too much on our safeties and corners. That is why they kept beating us deep in the passing game.

Why do you think we keep having busted coverages? It's because this secondary is being asked to do way too much.

Like my coaches always said in high school, 95% of football is getting to the right spots and getting lined up correctly. The wide-9 essentially has the defensive line lining up incorrectly all the time._________________